Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >>

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 9/14/2002 6:24:12 PM

Panzer Leo

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Lehmann
[B]Yes ! thanks ! sounds interesting, glad to have these explanations ... I am going from surprise to surprise by discovering your mod ... so many things are cool ... I just noticed that Flakpanzer 38 for instance got a smaller icone, it was not to scale before :)
I wonder to know why you have changed some availability dates e.g. firefly IIc and Vc as well as Achilles IIc are available from august 1944 (july in 7.1) ... is that based on specific information or just due to some practical accomodations ?
In fact I would like to know if the firefly used in july on the Normandy TO were only Ic or could have been IIc and Vc too ... Do you know if the Achilles IIc has been used in Normandy during the same time ?

David [/B][/QUOTE]

The reason for the availability dates of 17pdrs is due to the APCR ammo load rework. The first rounds reached Allied tankers in August '44 - as these rounds are crucial to the performence on the battlefield, I paid much attention to historical dates and numbers...all other nations do have a second vehicle with the same stats, but one with and the other without APCR ammo (76mm Shermans, e.g.). The UK OOB was simply full :)
So the versions you see there are usually the ones with the APCR load (so not before Aug '44) - if you want to purchase an Achilles with 17pdr in june, just "burrow" from ANZAC or Canada - the units you look for are in there and the difference in exp and leadership values are marginal...

_____________________________

[URL=http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/spwaw_h2h_modrework.php] [IMG]http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/PzLeos-H2H-Title-1.jpg[/IMG] [/URL]

Mir nach, ich folge euch !

(in reply to Adamo)

Post #: 31

Re: Re: Re: Re: To PzLeo: equipment prices in H2H - 9/15/2002 12:13:19 AM

Gallo Rojo

Posts: 731
Joined: 10/26/2000
From: Argentina
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panzer Leo
[B]

1) As with all nations, the APCR load was completely redone in H2H, to fit more historical amounts. Russian data is hard to come by, but according to what I could find, the first real use of APCR ammo in relevant numbers was at Kursk, mainly for 45mm AT-guns. It took a while for the T-34/76 to catch up and get APCR ammo, but as the T-34/85 reached the battlefield, this ammo became more frequent. T-34/76 m43 is no different from it's brother, except for a few APCR shots - but these shots make the difference in killing a Tiger or not...[/B][/QUOTE]

Ok, I take note of that :)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panzer Leo
[B]

2) The pic is wrong, but you're not right also :D
The tank in the snow is a SU-85M - a SU-100 with a 85mm gun...but I mixed it up with the regular SU-85 pic...[/B][/QUOTE]

Dam!! Then I did wrong my model!! It has the 100mm gun! :(

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panzer Leo
[B]

3) Was your T-34/76 killing the Tiger without a vulnerable location hit the m43 with APCR ? Otherwise it should be about impossible to crack the Tiger with the rather weak 76mm, when not hitting a good spot...[/B][/QUOTE]

I set-up an scenario with only Tigers and T-34. May 1943. Turned off al Tigers weapons and started to fire upon them at different ranges (no more than 5hexes in any case). T-34s killed Tigers by side and rear shots at 5 hexes. No APCR. Most of the times I recived a "vulnerable location hit" message, but I think that a couple of times not ... But I'm not sure, my message delay is set-up to .3 seconds ... so I have not much time to read it ... you're probably right and those shots were probably "vulnerable locations" too.

But, any way ... I would like to hear more about the 76.2mm Gun.
Why did you say that should be impossible for it to take a Tiger with out APCR and without a vulnerable location hit?
I know that this is a very debatable (does this word exist in English?) topic ...

I remember have read at the "Tiger Fibel" that Tiger crew-men shoudn't allow T-34/76 get closser thatn 1200mts by the sides and the rear, and by 500mts by the front.
I guess that this didn't mean that a T-34/76 was capable to take a Tiger at such a distance (let say 1000mts by the rear) with regular AP ammo, but the fact that is that German manual considered T-34/76 dagnerous at those long distance... why was that?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panzer Leo
[B]

BTW...yeah, I could see the pic - good model !

have fun :) [/B][/QUOTE]

Thank you! :D

_____________________________

The bayonet is a weapon with a worker on each end

(in reply to Adamo)

Post #: 32

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To PzLeo: equipment prices in H2H - 9/15/2002 1:01:14 AM

Panzer Leo

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gallo Rojo
[B]

But, any way ... I would like to hear more about the 76.2mm Gun.
Why did you say that should be impossible for it to take a Tiger with out APCR and without a vulnerable location hit?
I know that this is a very debatable (does this word exist in English?) topic ...

I remember have read at the "Tiger Fibel" that Tiger crew-men shoudn't allow T-34/76 get closser thatn 1200mts by the sides and the rear, and by 500mts by the front.
I guess that this didn't mean that a T-34/76 was capable to take a Tiger at such a distance (let say 1000mts by the rear) with regular AP ammo, but the fact that is that German manual considered T-34/76 dagnerous at those long distance... why was that?

Thank you! :D [/B][/QUOTE]

It is tough to judge over weapons, as many things one knows or heard are often influenced by some sort of reputation or kind of myth a certain weapon once became...
The 76mm gun of the T-34 is I think one of these weapons...as it appeared, it was dominant on the battlefield, cutting through lighter tanks like Pzkpfw III and 38(t) on the East Front...but only one year later it was almost not capable of taking out a Tiger at point blank...so the only thing one can do is to look at the physics and weapon stats to get an impression how good a weapon really was...
The 76mm is a low velocity gun (thus having lesser kinetic energy then higher velocity guns) and also suffered not seldom from poor Russian ammo quality in the early years. Also the ammo type the Russians used was not really optimized for penetration (if I recall right they missed the cap and were just plain AP only with ballistic caps - but I'm not sure).
So looked upon afterwards, the 76mm F-34 was one of the weaker guns in it's caliber size - but nevertheless at it's first appearance it left a big impression.
Technical innovation was so fast in WWII, that the top notch from last year could be the helpless prey the next year...

The armor penetration capability of the F-34 was somewhere between 80-90mm @ 90 degrees, depending on source. This is the most this gun could achieve and if you look at the armor thickness of the Tiger now...well, the normal hit won't get you far...

The ranges you gave are more likely to be the ranges for the 85mm gun of the T-34 (the 500m at front is the common distance given in most sources).

Nevertheless it makes sense (in reality and the game), to keep the T-34/76 at a greater distance - a vulnerable location hit is getting more likely, the closer you get and halves your armor value. So especially at the flanks, the Tiger is not save from penetration by the F-34, if it gets close...
Such a vulnerable location could be the lower hull sides. The lower hull sides are mostly covered by the road wheels and suspension system, but here and there you can get right to it...it has only 60mm thickness and a F-34 aiming at close range at such a spot can achieve a penetration...

The second reason is, that a plain penetration is not the only thing to bring down a Tiger. You can wear it down, by destryoing one system after the other...if you hit the suspension, or destroy the gun, Tigers are about useless and you neutralized them. These hits are also more likely to appear at closer range...so if you're in a Tiger, keep the distance :D

_____________________________

(in reply to Adamo)

Post #: 33

Hmmmmmmmm - 9/16/2002 3:26:03 AM

gorgias96

Posts: 122
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Spain
Status: offline

I�m absolutely disagreed with u Panzer. The 76.2 mm F-34 was a versi�n a little shorter of the 76.2 mm ZiS-3 AT Gun. The Zis-3 was a great AT weapon. The germans recognized it and used it (captured) very frecuently. The penetration with german ammo was beetween 120-140 mm.

The muzzle velocity was for the 76.2 mm ZiS-3-> 740 m/s
The weight of its proyectil AP (Not APCR) was-> 7,2 and 7,5 Kg

The muzzle velocity for 76.2 mm F-34 was ->680 m/s (shorter)
The weight of its medium AP proyectil was ->6,3 kg

Calculate the cynetic energy... as u see it�s very very similar. Obviously ist penetration had to be very similar too.

It�s true that the USSR ammunition in the 41-42 years had a very low quality. I�m talking about the BR-350A cartridges concretely so they was removed completely from battlefield in early 43 and changed for the BR-350B, 350P and others.

It�s true every penetration table gives to F-34 a penetration value beetween 80-90 mm 90� to 100-500 metres more or less. It was so because it copies number by number the USSR penetration tables maked during the war. BUT this tables was maked with russian penetration criteria. The soviets considered a tank destroyed when at least 75% of its armour size was penetrated. The germans and americans considered a tank destroyed when at least 50% of it armour size was penetrated. So to compare the russians AT guns with allied or german guns u have to add a 25% more or less to its penetration.
If u do this u see as the "real" penetration of the F-34 was beetween 95-105 mm what concur with the cynetic energy and historical dates Coincidence?
As u can see this value is too very similar to the 75 mm M3 Gun (Sherman�n gun) what is very logic if u remember that the 75 mm M3 is a 75 mm L36 gun and the F-34 a 76.2 mm L41.5 Gun Coincidence too?

Well i think that is common sense see the obvious. The logic says and the germans knew that a T34 can easily disable a tiger to 500 m shooting it to sides or rear without APCR (the T34 almost never carried APCR.... only in great battles or when Tank vs Tank was waited).

Penetration values lower 95 mm for the F-34 are no logical and innacurate historically...

(in reply to Adamo)

Post #: 34

Re: Hmmmmmmmm - 9/16/2002 4:17:35 AM

Panzer Leo

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gorgias96
[B]The Zis-3 was a great AT weapon. [/B][/QUOTE]

That is what I meant with reputation and in what period of time you look at a weapon...

[QUOTE][B]The germans recognized it and used it (captured) very frecuently. The penetration with german ammo was beetween 120-140 mm. [/B][/QUOTE]

You named the key to it...yes, it was a good design, but it's AT capability in German use was achieved by the better ammo and the gun had to be rebored to accept the German rounds (the same like in the Pak40 - therefore the almost identical penetration values of the two guns).

[QUOTE][B]
It�s true every penetration table gives to F-34 a penetration value beetween 80-90 mm 90� to 100-500 metres more or less. It was so because it copies number by number the USSR penetration tables maked during the war. BUT this tables was maked with russian penetration criteria. The soviets considered a tank destroyed when at least 75% of its armour size was penetrated. The germans and americans considered a tank destroyed when at least 50% of it armour size was penetrated. So to compare the russians AT guns with allied or german guns u have to add a 25% more or less to its penetration.
If u do this u see as the "real" penetration of the F-34 was beetween 95-105 mm what concur with the cynetic energy and historical dates Coincidence?
As u can see this value is too very similar to the 75 mm M3 Gun (Sherman�n gun) what is very logic if u remember that the 75 mm M3 is a 75 mm L36 gun and the F-34 a 76.2 mm L41.5 Gun Coincidence too?[/B][/QUOTE]

Go here and take a look: [URL=http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/defin_4.html]Russian Battlefield[/URL]

And take a look at the % of penetrating the armor - also you have to consider things like the quality of the test plates and lots more...much smarter folks than I did lot's of tests and compared Russian, US or German penetration values...the values you have in SPWAW are excellent researched and you can trust most of them...

[QUOTE][B]Well i think that is common sense see the obvious. The logic says and the germans knew that a T34 can easily disable a tiger to 500 m shooting it to sides or rear without APCR
[/B][/QUOTE]

I never doubt that a T-34 can be dangereous to a Tiger at 500m and I also gave an example how a penetration could be achieved...but it was just not that easy for the T-34...

[QUOTE][B]
Penetration values lower 95 mm for the F-34 are no logical and innacurate historically... [/B][/QUOTE]

That is a really vague thesis and I doubt you can back that up...

Somehow I knew, I would hurt someones feelings, when calling the F-34 gun a weak gun of it's caliber size :D

It is simply the way I look at the WWII guns in comparison, like:

75/L24 German shorty - extremely weak AT perfomence
76mm F-34 or 75mm M3 Russian and US low velocity - weak AT performence
76mm M1A1 or 75/L48 standard AT performence
17pdr or 75/L70 good (above the normal) AT performence

That is how I look at these guns and nothing else I wanted to say...to say a gun was good or bad - well that's up to everybodies taste, as you can make your judgement according to many features, not only penetration values...so don't get mad about me calling the F-34 a rather weak AT gun ;)

_____________________________

(in reply to Adamo)

Post #: 35

- 9/21/2002 6:42:47 AM

gorgias96

Posts: 122
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Spain
Status: offline

Yes it used german munition (76.2 mm ATG m.42). And the diference is 132 mm pen. in German OOB (with AP i saw no APCR) and only 77 mm!!!! in russian.... WOW!!" the german panzergranates are not good are simply "magical":D

Yes the F-34 was a mediocre gun AT (difference with 76.2 mm ATG) as the M3....BUT....???? What is a mediocre AT Valour for a gun AT?? I think 95 mm is efectively a "bad date" for a AT gun.....if we remember that a upstanding gun like the 75 L48 gun had 120 (+ or -) Really it was mediocre but the soviets not needed more fire power to defeat the germans "panzers" The most of nazi tanks hadn't more than 50 mm in front.... (Pz IVg had 50 mm max.!! in every date i have readed and in the OOB it has 70 and 60!!) so 90 and some mm of pen. was more than sufficient.
Why the M3 (75 mm L36 lower cinetyc energy) has 90 and a bit of pen. and the soviet F-34 (76.2 mm L42 more c.e.) has only a max. of 86?? Ammunition again?? Really the russian ammunion was so bad??? I think no. Effectively it had low quality... but it wasn't so bad.... finally they winned the war... True?? :D

I looked at battlefield.ru and i thank to u. The site confirm what i say about the soviet pen. dates. In the tank gun pen. statistics it says the russians considered a success hit when a 75% of armour was penetrated. The USA and germans only 50%. So u must add a 25% to the penetration value of soviets AT guns. Then 86+a 25% is.......?
If u dont think this, see as well the germans pen. values u see they are low too..... (they was diminished a 25% more or less probably). And the USA values?? :D :D ARE...... pathetic....:D :D

Well about the tiger...... it was 80 mm in rear and sides True?? If the F-34 had 95 mm of max pen. (more or less) to 10 hex. (500 m) it could defeat the armour usually but not easy... as u say and the "history" says. If u dont believe me do the test in WaW as i say.....

Bye (see u soon.... i will......:D :D )

(in reply to Adamo)

Post #: 36

- 9/23/2002 4:51:49 PM

Panzer Leo

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gorgias96
[B]Bye (see u soon.... i will......:D :D ) [/B][/QUOTE]

You bet !:D

[QUOTE][B]WOW!!" the german panzergranates are not good are simply "magical" [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, to some it's magic, to others it's physics :cool:

O.k., then let's take a look at the ammo at first:

Go here and see what different ammo types were used in Russia:

[URL=http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/defin_2.html]Russian Battlefield Ammo[/URL]

And remember the APBC with HE filler.

Then go here and check the abbreviations for Russian armor and look up thhe APBC with HE filler:

[URL=http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/defin_7.html]Russian Battlefield Abbreviations[/URL]

Then, finally, take a look again at this site and search for the stats of the ammo, you just picked:

[URL=http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/defin_4.html]Russian Battlefield Guns[/URL]

What we get now is:

a 76.2mm APBC with HE filler (BR-350A, or B), with a muzzle velocity in the F-34 gun of 680 m/s.

We only take a look at 90 degrees, as all nations test data has to be normalized to make them comparable.

This ammo now has disadvantages compared to 75mm PzGr.39 in the PaK40 or the rebored Soviet gun:

- a lacking AP cap
- a lacking muzzle velocity up to 110 m/s
- a HE filler, that was not as supportive to the penetration effect as on the German grenade (that's my add - from a British source, if my memory doesn't le me down)

And additionally, there is the overall poor quality in the first war years.

[QUOTE][B]The site confirm what i say about the soviet pen. dates. In the tank gun pen. statistics it says the russians considered a success hit when a 75% of armour was penetrated. The USA and germans only 50%. So u must add a 25% to the penetration value of soviets AT guns. Then 86+a 25% is.......? [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, actuall it does make your calculation worthless...
The 75% you take here, is the percentage of fragments of the projectile found in the vehicle after penetration.
You should have taken a look at what is listed under the table, the IP and CP.
There you can see the chance, that a penetration is actually achieved (with 75% fragments behind the plate).
Now compare the difference in IP (20% penetration chance) and CP (80% penetration chance) and you'll see, that they're in a span of about 11% of each other.
Now go back to your comparison of the 75% and the 50% fragments found and tell me, if it really seems realistic to conclude a penetration difference of 25% from that...:rolleyes:

The German stats from the Russian battlefield shouldn't be taken for comparison, because:

- these values are for tests on plates @60 degrees
- the test plate quality is very likely to differ from the Russian plate

So to answer you question directly:

[QUOTE][B] Ammunition again?? Really the russian ammunion was so bad??? [/B][/QUOTE]

In terms of AP performence of the BR-350 compared to other weapons of that caliber: YES :D

[QUOTE][B]Really it was mediocre but the soviets not needed more fire power to defeat the germans "panzers" The most of nazi tanks hadn't more than 50 mm in front.... [/B][/QUOTE]

If you had told that a Russian AT-gunner from late '42 on, I think he either would have beaten you up or he would have have proposed you for commissair career, depending on how much he liked you :D

The Russian "awareness" of the sufficiant performence of the F-34 gun surely had nothing to do with the 85mm gun being rushed on the battlefield in late '43, or ?

The only thing I really want to say is:

Almost all penetration values in SPWAW 7.1 are excellent researched. Paul and the guys did an outstanding job on normalizing test data and crosschecking sources. I tried to bring down randomly choosen ratings myself, to get a feeling how good the values int the game actually are...but if you spend some time doing that, you'll see how realistic they became in the last versions of SPWAW...

And one thing is for sure...the way you pick some incomplete info from sources and try to state the ones found in the game are incorrect is not even close to raise any serious doubt...

If you're really interested in these things, I suggest to buy some good books (Lorrin and Bird's, e.g.) and talk to guys like Paul Vebber (but after you read the books ;) ) or others who spent more then a few glances at three websites to come up with realistic data...but I have to warn you - this will be a real time eater to get into the ballistics of WWII :D

Otherwise, if you don't like to spend your sparetime on such studies, I simply suggest to trust the guys who did...

It is always fun talking about such topics, but I assume you were not present at the TO&E forum, when the penetration values have been worked out before the last SPWAW versions and after these debates, there was not much more to say concerning what you can model in the SPWAW engine - more precise can be only newer games - let's see what CL comes up with...

_____________________________

(in reply to Adamo)

Post #: 37

OK - 9/24/2002 7:32:53 AM

gorgias96

Posts: 122
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Spain
Status: offline

I�ll use ur own dates then....

I read... in battlefield.ru. Ammunition carried by the T34 with F-34:

Armour Piercing:

BR 350A (with HE in)
BR 350B (with HE in)
BR 350SP (Solid Round)

SUB-Caliber:

BR 350P

I read now the pen. values:

350A IP = 84 mm CP = 75 mm (this was the deficient ammunition if u read the notes u see how it wasnt produced in early 43)

350B IP = 94 mm CP = 86 mm (Maybe the most used when was noted that the 350A was deficient??)

350SP Well no dates about this but is logical to thing that its pen. value was best than B and A for it was solid and more dense and lighter too what means more velocity....

350P (sub-caliber) CP = 102 mm IP = ?? (maybe 110??)

Now.......... IP means a 20% probabilities the pen. was succeed and CP a 80%. If we use the USA or german criteria (50%) it�s obvious that the real pen. was the average beetween both values. I.e. 90 mm to 90� to 100 m with 350B 80 with 350A and more than 90 mm (it�s moderate to think so) with 350SP

With sub-caliber ammunition the pen. was in 105 mm more or less.

Well u think now accurate 86 mm max.!!! for the pen. date of F-34???

Let�s be moderate.... i think the minimum date for F-34 must be 90 mm (if we forget the 350SP).

I looked for information about the number of ammunition and its types that carried every T34. And i read every tank carried different types and number according to the mission they had. If was used like "TDs" then carries better ammuniton and more sub-caliber..... if they was used like "assault gun" then more HE and so......

Have u thought any time why the soviets didnt use especialized TDs (like the germans) to the summer 43?? Perhaps because the T34s or KVs with its "deficient" gun was it??

Sorry for my late opinion :D :D if i do now is precisely for the CL is going to get out and i dont want that the same errors happen. Sincerely i think that the soviets are very ver underestimated in later WaW version and in the new CL must not happen again......

I like to play with brits. poland and japs not soviets but i want a balanced game. The soviets cannot be again a simple "toy" to enterteiment to "germans" players.

see u

(in reply to Adamo)

Post #: 38

- 9/24/2002 9:42:40 PM

Panzer Leo

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline

Oh well, Gorgias96 - so you just refuse to be a believer :rolleyes:

But nobody shall say I'm not trying to come up with arguments to proof someone wrong :D

I somehow have the feeling, that you always pick the things you like (and in this case always to the favour of the Russians) and ignore everything else...

The penetration value for the F-34 gun in SPWAW is most likely for the BR-350A ammunition.
If we calculate the pen for this round like you did it for the "B", than it should have something around 85mm, right ?

Well, I don't know about the production stats of these rounds, I only have some comments, that the "A" was the common round to be used.
It is simply not possible in SPWAW to have a T-34 to carry 30 rounds "A", 5 rounds "B" and 2 shots "P"...
If you have access to good production stats of the different rounds and the thing you want to say is, that there should be a later T-34 version, that carries these better rounds, you might have a point there - but you still gotta proof it...

What you did up to now is simply wrong and bad statistics, not more...

But I have another one for you, that might give you a hint the SPWAW values aren't that wrong.

This is (as it appears) a test of a Pak40, F-34 and M3 gun under German conditions early in the war.

[URL=http://www.achtungpanzer.com/t34.htm]Achtung Panzer ![/URL]

It gives with 500m/@90 for the

F-34 71mm
Pak40 114mm
M3 66mm

before you scream and say "look the M3 is worser then the F-34, like I told you !!!", take a closer look at the ammo type - it is the solid AP ammo M72 and despite your assumption a solid shot should has a higher penetration then with the HE filler, the most used ammo M62 of APCBC type has a penetration, that is 1.16 times higher in US tests.

In SPWAW the normalized penetration for the Pak40 is 135mm. That's around 1.18 times higher then the test value we got here.
If we assume, that the other values from the test would increase with a quite similar factor, we would end up with penetration values in SPWAW for the

F-34 of 84mm (rounded up)
M3 with M62 of 91mm (rounded up), right ?

Now here is test data under the same conditions for different guns and if you look up the encyclopaedia, guess what values you will find :cool:

You can tell me what you want, but for the BR-350A ammo, the SPWAW is absolutely correct (and there's not even a penalty for the bad ammo quality)...

...if you have data on the frequency of usage of the BR-350B round, we can continue to talk...but that is the least you have to show up with ;)

_____________________________

(in reply to Adamo)

Post #: 39

- 9/25/2002 1:59:51 AM

Gallo Rojo

Posts: 731
Joined: 10/26/2000
From: Argentina
Status: offline

I have been following this interesting conversation � and well � I�m not an expert in WW2 gunnery or ammo, but like many people I have been playing war/strategic games since �ancient-board games times� and SP series since the very first SSI Steel Panthers I �
Any way, although I think that PzLeo is right about the F-34 gun (although there may be some controversial points), I also agree with Gorgias about that in some point Soviets are seen as a mere �toy� for Germans players �

You know � for many reason the majority of players like to play German side. Some players have logical reasons to like playing the Germans, for others is just a mater of �taste� and some ones probably have very �bizarre� reasons. But the fact is that most of the people like to play German side � And I guess that, in the case of SPWAW, Germans fans are followed by American fans (since there are a lot of players that are Americans and like to play their own country).

And many players see the Soviet tanks are �Those nice moving-targets;� T-34 are �My Tiger�s food� and the Russian infantry is like � you know � the French fries :D

This is not easy to prove. I can�t take you a �smoking gun� proving that I�m right � I only can present circumstantial evidence:
German OOB is always more carefully designed than others countries.
German OOB has some weapons that were very rare or experimental (i.e. the Mouse or those Panther Huh with infra red vision).
Dam! Even German pictures are �nicer� than others countries one�s!

I�m not saying that this is the fact in H2H version � but it is in v.7* �

And I�m also worrying about if this kind of �disdain� about other nations than US or Germany (particularly the USSR) :(

And just to change a little the topic: There is something in all SPWAW versions (including H2H) that I never understood and you may enlighten me about:

I see that T-34m42 has a better ROF and a better fire control than T-34m41 � can you tell me why is this?
As long as I now m42 improvements over m41 were a new gear box (replacing m41 gear box that was very deficient) and some other minor ones like a rounded access port to the engine (m41 had a rectangular one).
Was any improvement in T-34m42 optical systems or something?
And why is the improvement in the ROF? I understand that there is such an improvement in T-34m43, since it had this bigger hexagonal turret � but m42 turret was the same than 41 � Is there other reason?

Thank you!

_____________________________

The bayonet is a weapon with a worker on each end

(in reply to Adamo)

Post #: 40

Hmmmmm - 9/25/2002 3:42:15 AM

gorgias96

Posts: 122
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Spain
Status: offline

Well then if the BR-350A was the mostly common ammunition used.... Can u say to me what kind of ammunition use the F-34 in 1943 when the BR-350A wasnt produced??

Maybe apples...... bananas perhaps :D :D ??

U can read this i say in battlefield.ru.....read the notes....

(in reply to Adamo)

Post #: 41

Re: Hmmmmm - 9/25/2002 6:08:32 AM

Panzer Leo

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gorgias96
[B]Well then if the BR-350A was the mostly common ammunition used.... Can u say to me what kind of ammunition use the F-34 in 1943 when the BR-350A wasnt produced??

Maybe apples...... bananas perhaps :D :D ??

U can read this i say in battlefield.ru.....read the notes.... [/B][/QUOTE]

As I said, if you have evidence of the BR-350B being used in later T-34/76 versions, you have a point there and if you had brought it up 4 month ago, it most likely would have made it into H2H OOBs in a special designed T-34...but to say the F-34 is underrated and the penetration for it is historically incorrect, is simply wrong...

[QUOTE]I see that T-34m42 has a better ROF and a better fire control than T-34m41 � can you tell me why is this?
As long as I now m42 improvements over m41 were a new gear box (replacing m41 gear box that was very deficient) and some other minor ones like a rounded access port to the engine (m41 had a rectangular one).
Was any improvement in T-34m42 optical systems or something?
And why is the improvement in the ROF? I understand that there is such an improvement in T-34m43, since it had this bigger hexagonal turret � but m42 turret was the same than 41 � Is there other reason? [/QUOTE]

I'm not really sure, but it might be that different versions of the model 42 existed. This table shows the 42 with the hexagonal turret:

[URL=http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_6.html]Russian Battlefield[/URL]

The version in the Russian OOB is anyways a special one...it's uparmored...if it had the model 41 turret without additional armor, it would be the same in the game like the regular model 41 and otherwise it would be similar to the model 43...I think that's the reason why this exotic one made it into the OOB...

The reason why Germany and the US are usually modeled with most care is simply the fact, that it's easy to get good information on them - on German material even better then on US gear - just try to find something on the net...I would have loved to have a Russian with some knowledge on WWII working on better OOBs, but I don't know a single one...so US and German units are definetely modeled the best, although I tried to get rid of rare German units in the German OOB in H2H - you will not find the Maus or Sturmtiger available for normal purchase, along with many other things that got thrown out...it was one of the things I tried to care most of, to get more historical setups for German troops...

_____________________________

(in reply to Adamo)

Post #: 42

Re: Re: Hmmmmm - 9/26/2002 1:04:03 AM

Gallo Rojo

Posts: 731
Joined: 10/26/2000
From: Argentina
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panzer Leo
[B]

[URL=http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_6.html]Russian Battlefield[/URL]

The version in the Russian OOB is anyways a special one...it's uparmored...if it had the model 41 turret without additional armor, it would be the same in the game like the regular model 41 and otherwise it would be similar to the model 43...I think that's the reason why this exotic one made it into the OOB...

[/B][/QUOTE]

The picture on Russian Battle field is a T-34m43 model, not a m42. That's by sure.
As far as I know, was m43 wich incorporated the hexagonal Turret(the one that is in the picture is an hexagonal turret). This hex turret had more internal space and a better internal lay out, so crew men could move confortabely and load the gun faster.

m42 had a variety of turrets, but all were similar in aspect. Diference were that there was a "soft edge" one and a "hard edge" one ... I think that one of those turrets was easy to produce and more endurable than the other one ... but I'm not sure ... What is sure is that the internal layout was similar to m41, so I don't know why there is an improvenment in ROF ...

Any way, forget about it ... is not really importan ... may be there are another explanation or something that I don't know that improves the performace or something and justifies the ROF ...

_____________________________

The bayonet is a weapon with a worker on each end

(in reply to Adamo)

Post #: 43

Re: Re: Hmmmmm - 9/26/2002 1:12:28 AM

Gallo Rojo

Posts: 731
Joined: 10/26/2000
From: Argentina
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panzer Leo
[B]

The reason why Germany and the US are usually modeled with most care is simply the fact,[/B][/QUOTE]

� So we are agree about that German and US OOBs are most carefully modeled than those of USSR � :D :D � Great� let�s continue �

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panzer Leo
[B]
that it's easy to get good information on them - on German material even better then on US gear - just try to find something on the net...[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, I guess that it could be very difficult to get good information from the other side of the �iron curtain� ... particulary now that we are in 1970 and we are looking for the plans of the SS-20 missiles! :rolleyes: :D :D

Sorry about the sarcasm :) I didn�t want to be rude, honestly, I just couldn�t resist �

Look, I�m not talking only about OOB (sorry I get out of the topic, which was H2H and the 76.2mm gun)

How many MC have been realized?
Three: Two from the German perspective, one from USMC perspective. Any Soviet one? Nop!

Regular campaigns organically included in the game (namely that they come with MC CD if you buy it):
US Army/USMC: Preparing the Way; From Utah to the Rinh; The Victors; Tulagi: The First Offensive; Guadalcanal = 6 (I�m not counting �Long road to Victory� Because is a combination of the first trhee).
Germany: Watch Word Freedom; Stalingrad; Romel to the Rescue = 3
USSR: Heroes of the Motherland = 1
United Kingdom: Normandy Gold = 1
Japan: Zero! (no, not a campaign about the famous fighter :D just not a one single campaign �)

How many data do you need to collect to design a fun campaign? � Not much!
I have the story board for a Stalingrad Soviet side campaign based upon Rodmistrev XIII Rifle Guards division � And didn�t take me to long � I design a story board for Saturn & Uranus operations that will be used in �Russian Steel� Campaign (I didn�t include this one in the list because is a �private initiative�), and wasn�t so hard � And I have another story board for German Invasion to France in 1940 � What I have not is time to design them � but is easy to get good data for a Soviet side campaign � but there was only one designed �

Regarding the OOB � you know � you don�t need to much data to put a T-34/57 in the game (ok, there were very few of these � but there were more than the Maus � and more than Panther Huh �a unit that, by the way, as far as I know, needed a weak HT equipped with the infra red vision device to operate � but it�s not the case in the game! All you need is the Panther!) � you don�t need to much research to include some Guards Heavy Tanks! (the fact that you included them in your version is one of the things that I like most about H2H) � you don�t need to know much about soviet army to not link tank-desant troops to a only single type of MBT (a particularly crap one, for the worst).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panzer Leo
[B]
I would have loved to have a Russian with some knowledge on WWII working on better OOBs, but I don't know a single one...[/B][/QUOTE]

May be you have a point here. Let�s analyze this a little bit �
Firstly � probably there is a linguistic barrier.
Second, I knew one. I don�t know how deep was his knowledge about WWII, but he was a SPWAW fan. I played a couple of PBEM with him (he was dam good) � the guy run out of the Game when 7.0 comes out � totally pissed of about how Russian tanks had been modeled in this version (you probably remember those bitter discussions when 7.0) � and that wasn�t the first time that he had felt that Russian were �the duck of the wedding� in SPWAW (I don�t know if this expression exist in English � it means that you have been invited to a wedding, but only because it suppose that you are dinner).

Any way � you�re right � there aren�t to much Russian players out there � but may be there could be a few more if Russian SPWaW�s were a little more �nicer� than they are.
So the question is: Are the Russians OOB not that cared than American or Geman�s ones because there are few (or none) Russians helping � or Are few Russians helping because they feel that may be they are not very welcome?
Same thing is applicable to Japanese.

To sum up � I have no doubt that if there were 20 or 30 Russians regularly posting at the forum and interested on the game (as there are Americans and Germans and other Nations (Finnish for example)) � well, the Russian OOB should be much better than it is and we had much more Soviet side campaigns. But not only because of that they were helping, but also because they were potential buyers!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panzer Leo
[B]
so US and German units are definetely modeled the best, although I tried to get rid of rare German units in the German OOB in H2H - you will not find the Maus or Sturmtiger available for normal purchase, along with many other things that got thrown out...it was one of the things I tried to care most of, to get more historical setups for German troops... [/B][/QUOTE]

I know that you did � I have a big respect for your version.
Now � look � I�ll tell you which is my opinion:
I have no problem with the Germans having the Mousse or the SturmTiger or whatever (except probably for the Panther Huh, since it gives an unfair advantage �it wont give it if it were very very expensive and needed to be escorted by a Half-truck).
When I have problems is when Germans and Americans have those toys � and Russians do not have the T-34/57 � 57mm ATG is not available until late 43 while it was in Soviet arsenal since 41 (although in very short numbers, I now, but there were more 57mm than Mausse tanks, by the sure) � tankodesantikys can only be attached to one single MBT �. And I could go and go and go �

My general feeling is that there are certain nations that are better treated than others. And is not just my opinion (I now a lot of friends that were big SPWaW fans and run out of the game because of this).
And I give you another example but not related with the Russians: now a lot of players who I respect that are in the opinion that is almost impossible to beat the Americans � I don�t play too much in the western front, so I can not affirm it by my self � I think that you probably agree in this point (or at least in that they should be modeled in other way), since in your version American�s have a very different experience and leader rankings than they have in SPWaW 7.1

Now � SPWaW is a free game. I now that Matrix team dedicates a lot of time on it. I really respect that. And I really enjoy the game and (although all I have said) I�m a big fan. And I�m not saying that they consciously gives little care to Soviet OOB �just because�� I think that they do because most of the people push for the Americans and the Germans, because they are the nations that most of the people like to play with � but � you know � But, just as Gorgias pointed above, I�m worry about Combat Leader �. I mean � My favorites nations to play are Soviet Union, United Kingdom (which wont be included in CL) and Germany (which I have no doubt that will be very well cared in CL) � now � I can live with a not-that-good Soviet OOB in a free game like SPWaW � but � Will I pay 65 + shipping US Dollars (which is A LOT of money for me) jut to be �the duck of the wedding�?

I doubt it.

Any way � sorry about this long speech ... This pots is about H2H, and I finished talking about v7.1 and Combat Leader � It�s obvious that what I should do is post this in Combat Leader Forum. And that�s what I�ll do�

Best,
Gallo

_____________________________

The bayonet is a weapon with a worker on each end

(in reply to Adamo)

Post #: 44

Well antoher time.... - 9/26/2002 8:36:22 AM

gorgias96

Posts: 122
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Spain
Status: offline

http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/project_1.html

Look slowly this page. U�ll see a little number at the 350A ammunition... the number 17... u can read at end of the tables....

17. production cancelled in 43.

Well what did kind of ammunition use the F-34 then?

And in the another hand why do u see so clear that the most part of ammunition used by the 76 mm was the 350A?? There is the same probablities for use one than another one (is most logical to use the B if was seen that the A was deficient)

By the way.... the 76.2 mm ATG m42 used too bad ammunition?? Well Ian Hogg (an expert recognized around the world more than Lorrin) in his book artillery of twentieth century gives it a pen about 108 mm to 90� and 1000 mm (not apcr). Is he "mad" too?

Yes i trust absolutely in Matrix team when we speak about German and USA OOBs.... but in the USSR OOB the same errors are commited one and another time..... Yes.... Gallo is right when he says that they did not include the T34 57 mm (or KV 57 mm) When it participed as TDs in the siege to Mosc� in later 41 and 42. More of them had in the battlefield in 1942 that Tigers..... (http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_57.html) But they dont appear in any way.......

Well i dont like to say this but a criteria have been used with the German OOB and "others" with the soviet..... that is sure.... If their icons and grafics are uglier than the germans :D :D!!!!!

Ok i dont post any more in this topic for is stupid continue with the same discusion ad infinitum.... but is true the soviets are underestimated a lot.... while the germans are the "favorites" in this game.....

(in reply to Adamo)

Post #: 45

Re: Well antoher time.... - 9/26/2002 3:54:42 PM

Panzer Leo

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gorgias96
[B]http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/project_1.html
.... but is true the soviets are underestimated a lot.... while the germans are the "favorites" in this game..... [/B][/QUOTE]

Nothing new :D

Well, it's the same problem I have with your last post like I had with your previous...you throw in some numbers and say "ohhh the Russians are soooo underrated"...

What do you think I shall do ?

You expext me to change the H2H OOBs, because you are screaming the loudest ?

So if you really want to do something and not just wine around here, go and do some research work - surprise me !
If you say that the BR-350A was stopped in production in '43 and I can't see nothing in it, except that there might have been a change to another round somewhen...

Was it in Jan or Dec '43 - how many BR-350A were in stock and were they used up - how long did it take for the new round to actually reach the battlefield - 6 month or less ?
The same with you, Gallo Rojo - there's no doubt the Russians had a round that could penetrate over 100mm (no APCR), because any well machined round with a good AP cap could achieve that easily with the F-34 gun...but I know only of very little of these rounds ever produced - almost nothing...but if Ian Hogg has some good numbers, like 30% of the rounds issued from march '44 on where of the APCBC type, you got a good point there - but it takes nothing less then this to come up with, to really make peoples minds change (mine included)...

If you cannot come up with a good researched (or anyone else) answer to a lot of questions, I simply have no reason to change anything...why should I ? My rule for H2H OOBs was and will ever be to do no changes to the data until I can "proof" my new one is more accurate.
The thing I know for shure is, that in the beginning of the war in the East, captured T-34s carried the BR-350A as standard ammo and the performence in the game for this ammo is absolutely correct (no, sorry - it's better then in real, because the flaws are not worked into the OOBs).

If you can show when and in what numbers the ammo shifted to a better round, let us all know and we would really appreciate it - but till now you were not really that helpfull other then bringing up this topic...so go and start to work...:)

_____________________________

(in reply to Adamo)

Post #: 46

Re: Re: Re: Hmmmmm - 9/26/2002 4:40:46 PM

Panzer Leo

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gallo Rojo
[B]

The picture on Russian Battle field is a T-34m43 model, not a m42. That's by sure.
As far as I know, was m43 wich incorporated the hexagonal Turret(the one that is in the picture is an hexagonal turret). This hex turret had more internal space and a better internal lay out, so crew men could move confortabely and load the gun faster.

m42 had a variety of turrets, but all were similar in aspect. Diference were that there was a "soft edge" one and a "hard edge" one ... I think that one of those turrets was easy to produce and more endurable than the other one ... but I'm not sure ... What is sure is that the internal layout was similar to m41, so I don't know why there is an improvenment in ROF ...

Any way, forget about it ... is not really importan ... may be there are another explanation or something that I don't know that improves the performace or something and justifies the ROF ... [/B][/QUOTE]

But the "hard edge" turret is a different and larger turret design (the introduction of the Mickey Mouse hatches).

Go here to compare:

[URL=http://www.onwar.com/tanks/ussr/profiles/fpt347641.htm]Onwar - m41[/URL]

[URL=http://www.onwar.com/tanks/ussr/profiles/fpt3476m42.htm]Onwar m42[/URL]

[URL=http://www.onwar.com/tanks/ussr/profiles/fpt3476m43.htm]Onwar m43[/URL]

So the data in the game should be for a uparmored hard edge turret...

_____________________________

(in reply to Adamo)

Post #: 47

- 9/26/2002 11:50:18 PM

chief

Posts: 1660
Joined: 9/28/2000
From: Haines City FL, USA
Status: offline

Panzer Leo:
Wanting to try ur H2h Mod and not losing my SPwaw 7.1 I went out an upgraded my machine from 2Gbs HD to 20Gbs and boosted my RAM to 64. I did this based on all the reviews/comments I read here. (forum)
I have only tried the tutorial so far and have found the H2H Mod worthy of all its revues it was worth the upgrade.
THANK YOU for all your work and excellent Mod.
Resp: Chief:D :) :cool:

_____________________________

"God Bless America and All the Young men and women who give their all to protect Her"....chief

(in reply to Adamo)

Post #: 48

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmmmm - 9/27/2002 9:23:24 PM

Gallo Rojo

Posts: 731
Joined: 10/26/2000
From: Argentina
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panzer Leo
[B]

But the "hard edge" turret is a different and larger turret design (the introduction of the Mickey Mouse hatches).

[/B][/QUOTE]

You're right ... I was a little tired of typing when I posted that � I was wrong when I said soft edge and hard edge �

I was trying to said "Cast" turret and "Welded" Turret; Those were the m41 and m2 models turret (plus there was one m42 version with a very curious mantelete that looks like the M10 Wolverine mantelete) �

Hard Edge, Soft Edge, Laminate and ChKZ, were the m43 version turrets...

By the way ... I have remembered is that m42 had some improvements its suspension system, and also it had more wheels with rubber tyre, which gives it a better cross country performance and avoid a kind of �vibration� when tank rolled �Now I realize that this could be a good reason about why T-34m42 has a better fire control than m41 in SPWaW.

cheers

Gallo

_____________________________

The bayonet is a weapon with a worker on each end

(in reply to Adamo)

Post #: 49